table of contents - transit torontoand priorities for expansion of the ttc s rapid transit system to...

Rapid Transit Expansion Study

960407 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction .................................................................................................1

2. Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................1

3. Context of the Study ....................................................................................1

4. Related Studies and Projects ..........................................................................2

5. City of Toronto Official Plan ...........................................................................2

6. Density is the Key to Successful Rapid Transit ..................................................3

7. Identification of Possible Rapid Transit Options .................................................3

7.1 Introduction .......................................................................................37.2 Rapid Transit Options Not Considered for Short Term Implementation.........47.3 Capacity of the Yonge Subway and the Need for the YUS Loop .................57.4 Rapid Transit Options ..........................................................................6

7.4.1 Introduction..............................................................................67.4.2 Sheppard Subway (Options A1 to A6)..........................................67.4.3 SRT Extension to Sheppard Avenue (Option B1) ............................87.4.4 Eglinton West (Option C1) ..........................................................87.4.5 Bloor-Danforth Westerly Extension (Options D1, D2 and D3)............87.4.6 Spadina Subway Options (Options E1 and E2) ...............................97.4.7 Yonge Subway (Options F1 and F2) ...........................................107.4.8 Summary of Initial Screening Process .........................................10

8. Detailed Evaluation of Rapid Transit Options ...................................................11

8.1 Introduction .....................................................................................118.2 Comparison of Existing and New Rapid Transit Lines ..............................118.3 Comparison of New Rapid Transit Options to Each Other ........................118.4 Short Listed Projects .........................................................................14

9. Short Term Operational Improvements ...........................................................15

10. Next Steps ................................................................................................15


960407 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Introduction

The TTC�s rapid transit system has grown incrementally since the initial YongeSubway line opened in 1954 (see Exhibit ES-1). The Sheppard Subway scheduledto open in 2002 will mark the end of the latest era of subway construction and willlead to inevitable questions concerning the need for future rapid transit expansion,affordability and what is the highest priority for continued expansion.

2. Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the Rapid Transit Expansion Study (RTES) is to examine the needsand priorities for expansion of the TTC�s rapid transit system to support populationand employment growth as envisioned in the new City of Toronto Official Plan andin recognition of GTA development trends.

It is important for the TTC to have a clear vision on the need and feasibility for thedevelopment and expansion of the rapid transit system in the next 10-15 years andthat the Commission be able to articulate a short-term strategy for expansion fordiscussion within the current term of Toronto City Council (2001-2003).

For the purposes of this study, rapid transit is defined as those types of transitwhich require a fully separate right-of-way (subway, RT). This study is not intendedto deal with issues such as HOV lanes, reserved bus lanes, transit priorities, LRT ina reserved right-of-way or other similar transit initiatives. These issues are thesubject of a separate TTC study. However, in corridors that are not recommendedfor rapid transit extensions, short term operational improvements are addressedincluding bus rapid transit concepts.

3. Context of the Study

While this report focuses on the need for future rapid transit expansion, the TTCfaces a huge capital shortfall just to maintain the existing system in a state of goodrepair. The TTC�s capital needs in the next decade, assuming no rapid transitexpansion are $3.8 billion, against which the City of Toronto has established atarget of $2.2 billion. With a $1.6 billion shortfall in its base capital needs, the Cityof Toronto, and senior levels of government, must fund the TTC�s basic capitalneeds before contemplating funding for rapid transit expansion. TTC�s capitalneeds include the requirement to replace a large part of the bus and subway fleetand refurbishment of the streetcar fleet that was originally purchased with 75%funding from the Province of Ontario in the late 1970�s.

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12

Yon

geS

ubw

ay

(Un

ion

-Egl

into

n)-

19

54

Yon

geS

ubw

ayE

xten

sion

(Egl

into

n-F

inch

)-1

97

4

Un

iver

sity

Su

bway

(Un

ion

-St.

Geo

rge)

-19

63

Un

iver

sity

/Spa

din

aS

ubw

ayE

xten

sion

(St.

Geo

rge

-Wil

son

)-1

97

8

Blo

or/D

anfo

rth

Su

bway

(Kee

le-W

oodb

ine)

-19

66

Blo

or/D

anfo

rth

Su

bway

Ext

ensi

ons

(Kip

lin

g-K

enn

edy)

-19

80

Blo

or/D

anfo

rth

Su

bway

Ext

ensi

ons

(Isl

ingt

on-W

arde

n)-

19

66

Sca

rbor

ough

RT

(19

85

)

Nor

thYo

rkC

entr

eS

tati

on(1

98

7)

Har

bou

rfro

nt

LRT

(19

90

)

Spa

din

aS

ubw

ayE

xten

sion

(Wil

son

-Dow

nsv

iew

)-1

99

6

Spa

din

aLR

T

(19

97

)

Sh

eppa

rdS

ubw

ay

(Yon

ge-D

onM

ills

)-2

00

2

Exh

ibit

ES

-1:

Gro

wth

of

TT

CR

ap

idTra

nsit

Syste

m(1

954

-2002)

Ne

wD

eve

lop

me

nt/

RT

19

54

-20

02

.cd

r

08

/14

/01



The TTC has been consistent that the priority for capital funding is as follows:

Priority Capital Item

1 State of Good Repair/Safety2 Legislative3 Ridership Growth Related4 Transit Priorities/Improvement5 Rapid Transit Expansion/System Enhancements

The conclusions of this study, with respect to future rapid transit should not bemisinterpreted. While the short listed projects are important to the continuedgrowth of the TTC and the City of Toronto, their implementation would besupportable only after the TTC�s base capital needs have been met.

4. Related Studies and Projects

A number of studies are currently underway on future rapid transit expansion and anumber of private sector initiatives for an LRT network have recently been proposedfor the GTA. The intent of this study is not to critique these studies or to questionthe conclusions or priorities of other agencies. To the contrary, this study aims toexamine the rationale for rapid transit from the TTC�s perspective, to identify thecriteria for successful implementation of rapid transit, and to evaluate which TTCexpansion options have the highest probability for success based on those criteria.Only after a consistent evaluation method has been applied to all projects can adecision be made on the highest priority projects for expansion in the GTA.

5. City of Toronto Official Plan

From a planning, operational and city building perspective, it is important that theTTC�s priorities for rapid transit expansion be compatible with the City of Toronto�snew Official Plan. With a target population of 3.0 million, a simplified planningprocess, and targeted growth areas (see Exhibit ES-2), the Official Plan can also bea powerful tool to stimulate the densities that are necessary for a rapid transit lineto be an operating success.

This study attempts to answer the following key transit and land use questions:

• Given the critical relationship between transit and land use, how does thepopulation and employment growth envisioned in the City of Toronto OfficialPlan differ from past planning studies and what impact does this have on shortand long-term rapid transit planning?

• What is the current level of maturity of the various nodes of development withinthe GTA?

• If rapid transit systems are to be extended into new areas, at what densities canthey be operationally successful?

Exhib

itE

S-2

Pote

nti

alO

pportu

nit

ies

for

Gro

wth

:N

ew

Appro

aches

toLand

Use

New

Develo

pm

ent/P

ote

ntialO

pport

-New

Appro

ach.c

dr



• How will the location and density of new development within the City ofToronto (and the GTA) affect transit usage and the need and justification forrapid transit service into new areas?

• In addition to zoning and Official Plans, what other factors need to be in place toachieve significant redevelopment in rapid transit corridors and/or aroundstations?

6. Density is the Key to Successful Rapid Transit

When examining the existing rapid transit system, the single biggest factor indetermining whether a rapid transit initiative will be an operating success is thedensity that exists in the corridor today and the potential increased density that ispossible in the future. As shown in Exhibit ES-3, transit modal splits in excess of30% are only possible if the density in the vicinity of stations exceeds 100 jobsand/or residents per hectare. At densities below 100, the success of rapid transitcannot be assured and the operational performance of a line may not be financiallyaffordable.

This study focuses on those corridors that are at or near the density threshold of100 population/employment per hectare. Obviously, the risk of operational lossesincreases in the initial years of a line�s operation if extensive redevelopment musttake place to reach this threshold. The opposite is also true, i.e., lines that are at ornear the threshold today are less risky from a financial perspective asredevelopment is not needed to ensure operational success.

As shown in Exhibit ES-4, the stations built since 1978 (with a few exceptions)have not achieved a 30% transit modal split and most do not meet the densitythreshold even 25 years after implementation. This reflects the reality that somecorridors did not have the appropriate success factors for redevelopment prior toimplementation and increased zoning alone was not sufficient in overcoming thebarriers to redevelopment.

When some stations have extensive redevelopment and others have none 25 yearsafter a line was constructed, it should come as no surprise that �if you zonedevelopers will come� is not always the case. Zoning is one of many factors thatmust be in place for a line to be an operating success and this reality must befactored into rapid transit investment discussions.

7. Identification of Possible Rapid Transit Options

7.1 Introduction

As an initial stage of the RTES, a list of possible rapid transit initiatives wasidentified that could be implemented in the short to medium (10-15 years).This includes projects that would support and promote redevelopment in theCity of Toronto (particularly the designated City and intermediate centres),address the growing congestion problems in suburban areas, ensure the

00%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0-2

020-4

040-6

060-8

080-1

00

100-1

50

150-2

00

200-2

50

250-5

00

500-1

000

1000+

Tran

sit

Mo

de

Split

and

Densi

tyo

fD

eve

lop

ment

inth

eC

ity

of

Toro

nto

Exhib

itE

S-3

TransitModeSplitModeSplitfrom1996TTSData

Densi

ty(1

99

6Po

pula

tion

+E

mplo

ymen

t)/a

rea

ofG

TAZ

one

inha

TT

CSP

26

-4-1

99

9D

RG

.N

o.1

13

85

a

hig

h

low

ave

rage

New

Deve

lop

ment\

tran

sitm

od

e2

00

1.c

dr

ModalS

plit

Thre

shold

Densit

y

Thre

shold

08/1

4/0

1

00

%

10

%

20

%

30

%

40

%

50

%

60

%

Wilson LawrenceEast Downsview Midland Warden EllesmereKipling Glencairn LawrenceWest EglintonWest YorkdaleDupont

ScarboroughCentreKennedy StClairWest Mccowan

NorthYorkCentre

OldMill RoyalYorkJane Lawrence YorkMills Donlands Woodbine RunnymedeMain Broadview SummerhillPape CastleFrank Greenwood Rosedale

ChristieChester DundasWest

Keele HighParkCoxwell Bathurst

Finch Davisville

Dufferin Lansdowne Ossington Islington VictoriaPark SheppardSpadinaStClair StGeorge Sherbourne MuseumEglinton QueensPark Wellesley StPatrick

Bay College Dundas Bloor/Yonge Osgoode

UnionQueen StAndrew

King

ES

-4

Tran

sit

Use

and

Densi

tyC

lose

toR

T/S

ub

way

Stat

ions

(wit

hin

50

0m

etr

es)

Proportionoftripsmadebytransit

New

Stat

ions

Pre

-19

78

Stat

ions

Densi

ty(P

op

ula

tio

np

lus

Em

plo

yment/

Hect

are)

0-6

060-1

20

120-2

50

250+

New

Deve

lop

ment\

tran

sitm

od

e2

00

1.c

dr

TT

CSP

26

-4-1

99

9D

RG

.N

o.1

13

85

c



anticipated growth in the downtown core could be accommodated and beginto address the low transit modal split in the 905 regions.

The identification of options was based on a 2.7 million population/1.8million employment scenario (distributed by GTA traffic zone) for the City ofToronto. Exhibits ES-5 and ES-6 outline the densities in 1996 and theprojected densities by zone based on a City population of 2.7 million.

In 1996, only the downtown core and the Yonge-Eglinton area hadpopulation and employment densities above 250 per hectare. Moderatedensities (100-250 per hectare) are found in close proximity to the Bloor-Danforth Subway line, existing nodes (Consumers Road, the North York andScarborough City Centres, Kipling/Islington), portions of the EglintonCorridor, and isolated pockets in the northwest part of the city.

It is projected that when the City�s population reaches 2.7 million, three newareas will have densities in excess of 250 population and employment perhectare; namely, Summerhill/St. Clair, Davisville/Eglinton and North York CityCentre. Increases in density to moderate levels (100-250 population andemployment per hectare) are anticipated in the Sheppard Subway corridor,the remaining part of the North York City Centre, Scarborough City Centre,Downsview Station, York University, York City Centre area, Etobicoke motelstrip and the Spadina and Bloor-Danforth Subway lines north and west of St.George Station.

7.2 Rapid Transit Options Not Considered for Short Term Implementation

A number of rapid transit initiatives proposed in the GTA have not beenevaluated as they are considered to be beyond the scope of this study. Thefollowing projects were not considered in the RTES study:

• The GTSB proposal to investigate bus rapid transit concepts.

• GO Transit rail expansion options.

• The private sector proposal to operate LRT type services in certain GOrail corridors and the Finch Hydro right-of-way.

• A Waterfront LRT East Extension to the Portlands.

• A commuter rail operation from Union Station to Pearson InternationalAirport.

Of particular note is the fact that while the Waterfront LRT East Extension isconsidered an important long term initiative to support the redevelopment ofthe Portlands, it is not considered by the TTC to be a priority forimplementation until significant development takes place in the area. ThePortlands represents a significant policy thrust in the new City of TorontoOfficial Plan and the TTC supports the long term vision for the area.



However, the policies for the Portlands must bear fruit in terms of densitybefore an LRT to the area can be an operating success.

7.3 Capacity of the Yonge Subway and the Need for the YUS Loop

A critical issue that affects the identification of rapid transit options in thenext 10-15 years is whether or not the Yonge Subway line has sufficientcapacity to cope with projected growth. A related issue is whether theconcept of connecting the Yonge and Spadina Subway lines to increase thecapacity of the lines is required to alleviate congestion on the Yonge Subwayline south of Bloor.

For reasons that are more fully explained in the main report, the TTC believesthat the looping of the two lines is not required in the foreseeable future.Specifically, the following outlines the rationale for this conclusion:

• At the time of the YUS Loop Environmental Assessment (EA) in 1992ridership had peaked at 32,000 per hour or the practical capacity of theYonge line. Since that time ridership on the Yonge line has declinedsignificantly to a low of 20,400 in 1996-1997. While ridership hasrecovered to 27,000 in 2001 there is still spare capacity for the short tomedium term.

• Other initiatives (capital and operating) can be implemented in the shortterm to respond to congestion on the Yonge line at a lower cost thanlooping the two lines.

• A large portion of future growth to the Central Area can be moreeffectively served by GO Transit.

• It is expected that, in future, there will be better balance betweenresidential and employment growth in the downtown and Waterfrontareas than there has been in the past. This will moderate the need forincreased subway capacity into the downtown area.

In short, the situation which prompted the YUS Loop EA in 1992 haschanged significantly and consequently looping is not required in theforeseeable future. This opens the following possibilities for future rapidtransit expansion:

• Looping of the Yonge and Spadina Subway lines on Steeles Avenue couldbe pushed further north (e.g. Highway 7) if required in the future.

• Radial extensions of the line beyond York/University could be consideredif Steeles Avenue is no longer a constraint on the location of the top ofthe loop.

• Alignments which penetrate further west into the York University campuscould be considered. Alignments further west into the University wererejected in the YUS Loop EA in 1992 as a more westerly alignment into



the University increased the capital costs for an easterly extension of theSpadina Subway line to join the Yonge Subway line.

The above conclusions were a key factor in the identification of future rapidtransit initiatives as outlined below.

7.4 Rapid Transit Options

7.4.1 Introduction

Given the above conclusions and based on the 2.7 million population growthscenario, a total of six rapid transit initiatives were identified for potentialimplementation in the next 10-15 years (representing a total of 15 stagingoptions) as outlined below (see Exhibit ES-7 and ES-8).

• Sheppard Subway (6 options)• Scarborough RT (1 option)• Eglinton Subway (1 option)• Bloor-Danforth West (3 options)• Spadina Subway Radial (2 options)• Yonge Subway Radial (2 options)

The following briefly describes each option and the rationale for screeningout certain options from further consideration.

7.4.2 Sheppard Subway (Options A1 to A6)

Option A1 � This option (see Exhibit ES-9) involves a 1.4 kilometre singlestation extension of the Sheppard Subway line to Consumers Road. Whilethis option would represent a low cost extension to an area with highridership and re-development potential it has been not been retained as astand alone extension option for the following reasons:

• Site constraints in the area of Consumers Road station.

• A bus terminal would be a throwaway cost following a further extensionto Victoria Park.

• Alignment constraints with respect to the location of a crossover.

• The lack of space for commuter parking and passenger pick up and dropoff facilities.

This is consistent with the Sheppard Subway EA which recommended thatVictoria Park be the next stage beyond Don Mills Station. Consequently,Option A1 was screened from further consideration as a stand alone stagingoption.

960407

EXH

IBIT

ES-7

� S

UM

MA

RY

OF

RA

PID

TRA

NSIT

OPT

ION

S A

ND

RES

ULT

S O

F IN

ITIA

L SC

REE

NIN

G

Num

ber

of S

tation

sC

apital

Cos

t1

Rap

id T

rans

it Ini

tiat

ive

Initia

llyFu

ture

Leng

th(k

m)

Fixe

d Fa

cilit

yV

ehic

les

Tot

al

Res

ults

of

Initia

lScr

eeni

ng

She

ppar

d Sub

way

A1 �

Don

Mill

s � C

onsu

mer

s Roa

dA

2 �

Don

Mill

s � V

icto

ria P

ark

A3 �

Don

Mill

s � K

enne

dyA

4 �

Don

Mill

s � C

N/C

PA

5 �

Don

Mill

s � S

carb

orou

gh C

ity

Cen

tre

A6 �

Yon

ge �

Dow

nsvi

ew

1 2 4 5 7 2

-- -- -- -- -- --

1.4

2.1

4.9

5.5

8.0

4.5

No

Cos

ts D

evel

oped

$390 M

$843 M

$1,0

02 M

$1,3

83 M

No

Cos

ts D

evel

oped

No

Cos

ts D

evel

oped

$27 M

$49 M

$49 M

$76 M

No

Cos

ts D

evel

oped

No

Cos

ts D

evel

oped

$417 M

$892 M

$1,0

51 M

$1,5

35 M

No

Cos

ts D

evel

oped

Elim

inat

ed

Elim

inat

edB1 �

SRT (

McC

owan

� S

hepp

ard)

31

3.1

$286 M

$88 M

$374 M

C1 �

Egl

into

n Sub

way

(A

llan�

Yor

k C

ity

Cen

tre)

41

4.8

$870 M

$38 M

$908 M

Blo

or-D

anfo

rth

Sub

way

D1 �

Kip

ling

� W

est

Mal

lD

2 �

Kip

ling

� D

ixie

D3 �

Kip

ling

� M

issi

ssau

ga C

ity

Cen

tre

1 2 5

1 1 1

3.8

5.3

10.5

$455 M

$706 M

No

Cos

ts D

evel

oped

$113 M

$167 M

No

Cos

ts D

evel

oped

$568 M

$873 M

No

Cos

ts D

evel

oped

Elim

inat

edSpa

dina

Sub

way

(Rad

ial)

E1 �

Dow

nsvi

ew t

o Ste

eles

E2 �

Dow

nsvi

ew t

o V

augh

an C

orpo

rate

C

entr

e

4 5-- 1

6.1

8.6

$880 M

$1,2

18 M

$92 M

$130 M

$972 M

$1,3

48 M

Yon

ge S

ubw

ayF1

� F

inch

to

Cla

rkF2

� F

inch

to

Lang

staf

f2 3

-- --3.7

7.2

$573 M

$437 M

$113 M

$221 M

$686 M

$1,1

58 M

1 E

xclu

des

yard

cos

ts,

prop

erty

cos

ts a

nd e

scal

atio

n (a

ll co

sts

in 2

000 d

olla

rs)

New

Develo

pm

ent\

map-e

xpansio

n2.c

dr

July

18,

2001

01

2km

SH

EP

PA

RD

Va

ug

ha

nC

orp

ora

teC

en

tre

EG

LIN

TO

NW

ES

T

BL

OO

RD

AN

FO

RT

H

SC

AR

BO

RO

UG

HR

T

SP

AD

INA

Hig

hw

ay

7

Cla

rkA

ve.

Ste

ele

sA

ve.

Fin

ch

Kip

lin

g

Do

nM

ills

Eg

lin

ton

West

Do

wn

svie

w

Sheppard

Ave.

Sheppard

Ave.

JaneSt.

JaneSt.

WesMall

Dixie

KeeleSt.

Kennedy

VictoriaPark

KeeleSt.

To

ron

toTra

nsit

Co

mm

issio

n

Lo

ng

Lis

tO

fR

ap

idTra

nsit

Op

tio

ns

Exh

ibit

ES

-8

YO

NG

EI2

(Rad

ial)

I3(R

ad

ial)

H1

(Lo

op

)

I1(R

ad

ial)

C1

A2

A1

A3

A4

A6

B1

Exis

tin

gR

ap

idT

ran

sit

Exp

an

sio

nO

ptio

ns

Re

tain

ed

for

Fu

rth

er

Eva

lua

tio

nA

2A

3A

4B

1

D1

D2

J2

J1

A6

To

po

fL

oo

p

D3

Mis

sis

sau

ga

Cit

yC

en

tre

Rap

idTr

ansi

t

Exp

ansi

onS

tudy

(RT

ES

)



Option A2 � This option (see Exhibit ES-9)) involves a 2 kilometre extension(2 stations) to Victoria Park with traditional bus, drop off and commuterparking facilities at the terminal station.

Option A3 � This 4.8 kilometre extension to Kennedy Road (see Exhibit ES-9) provides two additional stations beyond Victoria Park (Warden, Kennedy).This option has additional feeder bus, ridership and re-development potentialand provides some opportunity for GO/TTC transfers to the Stouffville GOline.

Option A4 � This option (see Exhibit ES-10) extends beyond Kennedy Roadto make a direct connection with the Stouffville GO line and provides astation in an area ripe for re-development (area bounded by Sheppard,Midland, Highway 401 and Kennedy Road).

Option A5 � An 8.0 kilometre extension to complete the Sheppard Subwayto the Scarborough City Centre (see Exhibit ES-10). This option would linkthe two City Centres and includes a new station in the Progress Westindustrial district, providing a further stimulus to the City Centre and thecreation of further reverse direction traffic on the Sheppard Subway.

Option A6 � A 4.5 kilometre westerly extension from Yonge Street to AllenRoad (with stations at Bathurst and Downsview) was identified initially butwas screened from further consideration for the following reasons (seeExhibit ES-11):

• As Downsview Station is already served by the Spadina Subway line,only one additional station is possible (Bathurst) and this station has onlylimited development potential.

• Demand for rapid transit is considerably higher east of Yonge Street incomparison to west of Yonge Street. The growth of the North York CityCentre does not depend on a westerly extension of the Sheppard Subwayline and consequently a westerly extension is considered lower priority incomparison to further easterly extensions.

• The high capital cost of such an extension is not matched by highridership or re-development potential.

• Population and employment growth in the corridor is projected to be low.

• Densities in the area are projected to be below the threshold forimplementation of rapid transit.

• The opportunities for feeder bus savings and commuter parking potentialare considered to be low.

While there would be some strategic benefit in terms of encouragingSheppard Subway riders to utilize the Spadina Subway line (rather the YongeSubway line) to access the downtown core and in providing additional

Option A2

Option A3

Option A1 SCREENED

FROMFURTHER

CONSIDERATION

ES/Shepoptions-a123.cdr

To

ron

toTra

nsit

Co

mm

issio

n

Rap

idTr

ansi

t

Exp

ansi

onS

tudy

(RT

ES

)

Sh

ep

pard

Su

bw

ay

Op

tio

ns

(A1,A

2an

dA

3)

Exh

ibit

ES

-9

08/05/2001

To

ron

toTra

nsit

Co

mm

issio

n

Rap

idTr

ansi

t

Exp

ansi

onS

tudy

(RT

ES

)

Sh

ep

pard

Su

bw

ay

Op

tio

ns

(A4

an

dA

5)

Exh

ibit

ES

-10

Existing SRT

Existing Yonge Subway

Existing Sheppard Subway

Sheppard Subway Extension

GO Rail Lines

Option A5

Option A4

ES/Shepoptions-a45.cdr

08/05/2001

New

Develo

pm

ent\

Sheppext.

cdr

To

ron

toTra

nsit

Co

mm

issio

n

Rap

idTr

ansi

t

Exp

ansi

onS

tudy

(RT

ES

)

A6

-S

he

pp

ard

Su

bw

ay

Ex

ten

sio

n(Y

on

ge

toD

ow

ns

vie

w)

Exis

tin

gS

tatio

n

Ne

wS

tatio

n

Sta

tio

nu

nd

er

Co

nstr

uctio

n

Pro

po

se

dW

este

rly

Exte

nsio

no

fth

eS

he

pp

ard

Su

bw

ay

Sh

ep

pa

rdS

ub

wa

y(u

nd

er

co

nstr

uctio

n)

N

FaywoodBlvd.

AllenRd.

BathurstSt.

SenlacRd.

YongeSt.

BayviewAve.

Fin

ch

Ave.W

.

Sheppard

Ave.E

.

Sheppard

Ave.W

.

Hig

hw

ay

401

York

Mill

sR

d.

Fin

ch

Dow

nsvie

w

Wils

on

York

dale

Nort

hY

ork

Centr

e

Sheppard

/Y

onge

York

Mill

s

Wils

on

Yard

Sheppard

Tailt

rack

Exis

tin

gS

ub

wa

y Exh

ibit

ES

-11

SC

RE

EN

ED

FR

OM

FU

RTH

ER

CO

NS

IDE

RA

TIO

N

08/1

4/0

1



network connectivity for a variety of trip origins and destinations, a westerlyextension of the Sheppard Subway is not considered a high priority in theshort to medium term. Consequently, Option A6 was screened from furtherconsideration.

7.4.3 SRT Extension to Sheppard Avenue (Option B1)

This involves a 3.55 kilometre extension of the SRT to Sheppard Avenue(see Exhibit ES-12) with stations at Markham Road, Milner and SheppardAvenue including a station in the vicinity of Centennial College.

7.4.4 Eglinton West (Option C1)

A 4.7 kilometre westerly extension of the subway from Allen Road to YorkCity Centre (see Exhibit ES-13) includes Caledonia Station as a futurestation.

7.4.5 Bloor-Danforth Westerly Extension (Options D1, D2 and D3)

Three options for a westerly extension of the Bloor-Danforth Subway linewere identified as follows:

Option D1 � Due to the potential redevelopment of the Sherway GardensCentre this 3.2 kilometre extension (one station) includes the East MallStation as a future station (see Exhibit ES-14).

Option D2 � This option (see Exhibit ES-14) provides a further 1.4 kilometreextension from Sherway Gardens to Dixie Road. This extension would crossthe City/Mississauga boundary and while this raises a number of operational,cost sharing and jurisdictional issues, this option has a number of advantagesfrom a transportation perspective which warrants retention of this option forfurther consideration:

• It penetrates the west side of Highway 427 and the Etobicoke Creekwhich are significant transportation constraints to cross boundary travel.

• It provides an opportunity to integrate the Bloor-Danforth Subway andMilton GO lines in terms of transfers and shared commuter parking.

• It would result in significant feeder bus savings for Mississauga Transitand would free up land for re-development at Kipling and IslingtonStations which is currently utilized for terminal facilities (particularly busterminals).

Option D3 � Option D3 (see Exhibit ES-15) would extend the Bloor-DanforthSubway line to the Mississauga City Centre including five new stations. Forthe following reasons, this option was screened from further consideration:

New

Develo

pm

ent\

Scarb

orm

ap.c

dr

CN

CN

HIGHLAND

CREEK

NE

WB

EL

LA

MY

YA

RD

Ag

inco

urt

GO

Stn

.S

HE

PP

AR

DS

TN

.

MIL

NE

RS

TN

.

Cente

nnia

lC

olle

ge

Palm

ers

ton

Pla

ce

MA

RK

HA

MS

TN

.

BE

LL

AM

YS

TN

.(F

UT

UR

E)

McCowanStn.

ScarboroughCentreStn.

MidlandStn.

Exis

tin

g

SR

T

Elle

sm

ere

01

km

De

co

mm

issio

nE

xis

tin

gM

cC

ow

an

Ya

rd

Futu

reS

tation

Site

SR

TE

xte

nsio

nE

xis

ting

SR

T

LE

GE

ND

:

To

ron

toTra

nsit

Co

mm

issio

n

B1

-S

carb

oro

ug

hR

TE

xte

nsio

n(M

cC

ow

an

-S

hep

pard

)

Exh

ibit

ES

-12

Rap

idTr

ansi

t

Exp

ansi

onS

tudy

(RT

ES

)

New

Develo

pm

ent\

Alla

n-Y

CC

.cdr

To

ron

toTra

nsit

Co

mm

issio

n

C1

-E

glin

ton

Su

bw

ay

(Allen

-Y

ork

Cit

yC

en

tre)

Exh

ibit

ES

-13

Rap

idTr

ansi

t

Exp

ansi

onS

tudy

(RT

ES

)

Futu

re

Mis

siss

auga

Tran

sitw

ay

GO

Georg

eto

wn

GOBradford

LB

PI

A

BLACK

RIVER

IndianLine

CARLINGVIEW

Hwy27

SPADINASUBWAY

ATTWELLSKYWAY

KIPLING

ISLINGTON

SCARLETT

JANE

YORKCITY

CENTRE

KEELE

EG

LIN

TO

NA

VE

.

DUFFERIN

ALLEN

REN

FO

RTH

ROYALYORK

MARTINGROVE

01

2km

Bu

sw

ay

Co

nn

ectio

n

WIL

SO

NY

AR

D

Ph

ase

1F

utu

reE

xte

nsio

nE

xis

tin

gS

ub

wa

yA

lte

rna

teC

orr

ido

r

LE

GE

ND

:

GO

Eto

bic

oke

N

EG

LIN

TO

NW

ES

T

Fu

ture

Ph

as

e

Ph

as

e1

To

ron

toTra

ns

itC

om

mis

sio

n

Rap

idTr

ansi

t

Exp

ansi

onS

tudy

(RT

ES

)

D1/D

2-

Blo

or

Dan

fort

hW

este

rly

Exte

nsio

n(K

iplin

g-

Dix

ie)

Exh

ibit

ES

-14

Ne

wD

eve

lop

me

nt\

D1

/D2

.cd

r

Au

gu

st,

20

01

D1

D1

New

Develo

pm

ent\

Kip

ling-M

iss.c

dr

To

ron

toTra

nsit

Co

mm

issio

n

D3

-B

loo

r-D

an

fort

hW

este

rly

Exte

nsio

n(K

iplin

g-

Mis

sis

sau

ga

Cit

yC

en

tre)

Exh

ibit

ES

-15

(Futu

re)

DIX

IE

Cawthra

GO

Rail

Corr

idors

Exis

ting

Subw

ay

Blo

or

Danfo

rth

Weste

rly

Exte

nsio

n

Futu

reM

issis

sauga

Tra

nsitw

ay

SC

RE

EN

ED

FR

OM

FU

RT

HE

R

CO

NS

IDE

RA

TIO

N

Rap

idTr

ansi

t

Exp

ansi

onS

tudy

(RT

ES

)



• The Region of Peel Official Plan does not support an extension of theBloor-Danforth Subway line to the City Centre. Instead, the planprioritizes the need for the Mississauga Transitway and in the longer terman extension of the Eglinton Subway line to meet the long term growthpotential of the City Centre.

• The length and cost of such an extension precludes its consideration as ashort to medium term staging option.

7.4.6 Spadina Subway Options (Options E1 and E2)

Option E1 � This option extends the Spadina Subway line in a radial fashion6.0 kilometres from Downsview Station to Steeles Avenue (See ExhibitES-16). This option provides York University with two stations, results in aninter-regional bus terminal for TTC, GO Transit and York Region on SteelesAvenue and permits 3,500 parking spaces to be constructed in the Hydroright-of-way north of Steeles Avenue.

Option E2 � A further possible staging option for a northerly extension of theSpadina Subway line would involve extending the Spadina Subway line in asingle stage to the Vaughan Corporate Centre (see Exhibit ES-17). Thiswould involve an extension from Downsview Station of 8.6 kilometres andthe implementation of one further station at Jane Street/Highway 7 in theVaughan Corporate Centre. With this option, it has been assumed that astation at Highway 407 would be deferred pending the completion of theHighway 407 Transitway.

It should be noted that the City of Vaughan has initiated a CorridorProtection Study to identify a preferred alignment for a radial extension ofthe Spadina Subway line to the Vaughan Corporate Centre at Jane Streetand Highway 7. The TTC has participated in this study and a wide range ofalignment options have been investigated to protect for such an extension inthe future. The Steeles Avenue alignment has emerged as the preferredoption to connect to a north-south alignment, west of Jane Street, to theVaughan Corporate Centre. As a result, Option E2 is consistent with theconclusion of the Vaughan Corridor Protection Study and is fully compatiblewith the City of Vaughan�s long term objective for rapid transit to theCorporate Centre.

It should also be noted that a revised alignment between Downsview Stationand Keele/Finch Station has been identified which would result in theGO/Finch Station being located at Sheppard Avenue and the shifting of theKeele/Finch Station approximately 200 metres to the south. This alignmentcan be implemented in either Option E1 or E2 and will be the subject offurther analysis following the screening of the options to a short list.

Ne

wD

eve

lop

me

nt\

sp

ad

ina

su

bw

ayra

dia

l1.c

dr

To

ron

toTra

ns

itC

om

mis

sio

n

E1

-S

pa

din

aS

ub

wa

y(R

ad

ial)

No

rth

erl

yE

xte

ns

ion

-(D

ow

ns

vie

w-

Ste

ele

s)

Exh

ibit

ES

-16

Rap

idTr

ansi

t

Exp

ansi

onS

tudy

(RT

ES

)

08/1

5/0

1

Sh

ep

pa

rdA

ve

.

Fin

ch

Av

e.

Hig

hw

ay

40

7

Ste

ele

sA

ve

.

Hy

dro

Co

rrid

or.

Yo

rkU

niv

ers

ity

Va

ug

ha

nC

orp

ora

teC

en

tre

(VC

C)

Hig

hw

ay

7

Highway400

JaneSt.

KeeleSt.

BathurstSt.

BradfordGOLine

Ke

ele

Ali

gn

me

nt

EA

Alig

nm

en

t

VC

CN

od

e

To

ron

toTra

ns

itC

om

mis

sio

n

E2

-S

pa

din

aS

ub

wa

y(R

ad

ial)

No

rth

erl

yE

xte

ns

ion

-(D

ow

ns

vie

w-

Va

ug

ha

nC

orp

ora

teC

en

tre

)

Exh

ibit

ES

-17

Ne

wD

eve

lop

me

nt\

sp

ad

ina

su

bw

ayra

dia

l.cd

r

Sh

ep

pa

rdA

ve

.

Fin

ch

Av

e.

Hig

hw

ay

40

7

Ste

ele

sA

ve

.

Hy

dro

Co

rrid

or.

Yo

rkU

niv

ers

ity

Va

ug

ha

nC

orp

ora

teC

en

tre

Hig

hw

ay

7

Highway400

JaneSt.

KeeleSt.

BathurstSt.

BradfordGOLine

Rap

idTr

ansi

t

Exp

ansi

onS

tudy

(RT

ES

)VC

CN

od

e

Ke

ele

Ali

gn

me

nt

EA

Alig

nm

en

t

Fu

ture

Sta

tio

n

08/1

5/0

1



7.4.7 Yonge Subway (Options F1 and F2)

Option F1 � This involves extending the Yonge Subway line 3.3 kilometresnorth to Clark Avenue with stations at Steeles Avenue and Clark Avenue(see Exhibit ES-18).

Option F2 � Option F2 (see Exhibit ES-19) would extend the Yonge Subwayline in a single stage 6.7 kilometres to Highway 7/Highway 407/Langstaffwith stations at Steeles Avenue, Clark Street and Highway 7/407.

7.4.8 Summary of Initial Screening Process

The initial review has screened the following options from furtherconsideration (see also Exhibit ES-20):

Option Project StageA1 Sheppard Subway Don Mills � Consumers RoadA6 Sheppard Subway Yonge � DownsviewD3 Bloor-Danforth Kipling � Mississauga City Centre

The screening out of these initiatives does not mean that rapid transitexpansion to these areas will not be necessary in the long term. It simplymeans that their implementation cannot be justified in the short to mediumterm, is not practical as a stand alone incremental staging option, or doesnot have the necessary density in the foreseeable future to support aninvestment in rapid transit.

The projects outlined in Exhibit ES-21 were evaluated based on the followingkey criteria:

Criteria MeasureRidership ! Peak point ridership

! Annual riders! Annual new riders! Daily boardings! Boardings per kilometer

Population and Employment ! Population and employment within 500metres of station

! Population and employment within2 kilometers

! Population/employment densityCapital Cost Effectiveness ! Ratio of capital costs to new ridersOperating Cost Effectiveness ! Ratio of operating costs to new ridersNetwork Connectivity ! Connection to nodes, feeder buses, GO

lines, inter-regional transitDevelopment Potential ! Success factors for developmentOfficial Plan Support ! Compliance with Official Plan policies and

growth areasStaging Flexibility/Risk ! Time to implement and risk that forecasts

may not materializeInter-Regional Impacts ! Ability to increase cross boundary

ridership

New Development\Finch-Steeles.cdr

Toronto TransitCommission

F1 - Yonge SubwayNortherly Extension(Finch - Clark Ave.)

Exhibit

ES - 18

Highway 407

Highway 7

Centre St.

Clark Ave.

Steeles Ave.

Cummer Ave.

Finch Ave.

Sheppard Ave.

Highway 401

York Mills Rd.

Yonge

St.

Will

ow

dale

Ave.

Bath

urs

tS

t.

Senla

cR

d.

Bayvie

wA

ve.

Leslie

St.

LangstaffGateway

GO

GO

GO

Sheppard Subway

Richmond HillGO Line

Sheppard Subway(under Construction)

Yonge Subway

Yonge SubwayExtension


Rapid Transit

Expansion Study

(RTES)

08/14/01

New Development\Finch-Langstaff.cdr

Highway 407

Highway 7

Centre St.

Clark Ave.

Steeles Ave.

Cummer Ave.

Finch Ave.

Sheppard Ave.

Highway 401

York Mills Rd.

Yonge

St.

Will

ow

dale

Ave.

Bath

urs

tS

t.

Senla

cR

d.

Bayvie

wA

ve.

Leslie

St.

LangstaffGateway

GO

GO

GO

Sheppard Subway


Sheppard Subway(under Construction)

Yonge Subway

Yonge SubwayExtension


Toronto TransitCommission

F2 - Yonge Subway (Radial)Northerly Extension(Finch - Langstaff)

Exhibit

ES - 19

Rapid Transit

Expansion Study

(RTES)

08/14/01

New

Develo

pm

ent\

map-e

xpansio

n1.c

dr

(1)

LRT

inG

OR

ail

Co

rrid

ors

and

Co

mm

ute

rR

ail

toLe

ste

rB

Pe

ars

on

Airp

ort

we

reno

tc

onsi

de

red

as

op

tio

ns

inth

isst

ud

y.

01

2km

SH

EP

PA

RD

BL

OO

RD

AN

FO

RT

H

SP

AD

INA

Hig

hw

ay

7

Cla

rkA

ve.

Ste

ele

sA

ve.

Sheppard

Ave.

Sheppard

Ave.

JaneSt.

JaneSt.

WesMall

Dixie

KeeleSt.

Kennedy

VictoriaPark

KeeleSt.

A1

Exis

tin

gR

ap

idT

ran

sit

Op

tio

ns

Elim

ina

ted

fro

mF

urt

he

rC

on

sid

era

tio

n

D3

A6

(1)

To

ron

toTra

nsit

Co

mm

issio

n

Rap

idTra

nsit

Op

tio

ns

Elim

inate

dfr

om

Fu

rth

er

Co

nsid

era

tio

n

Exh

ibit

ES

-20

Rap

idTr

ansi

t

Exp

ansi

onS

tudy

(RT

ES

)

08/1

4/0

1

New

Develo

pm

ent\

map-e

xpansio

n.c

dr

08/1

4/0

1

01

2km

SH

EP

PA

RD

EG

LIN

TO

NW

ES

T

BL

OO

RD

AN

FO

RT

H

SC

AR

BO

RO

UG

HR

T

SP

AD

INA

Hig

hw

ay

7

Cla

rkA

ve.

Ste

ele

sA

ve.

Sheppard

Ave.

Sheppard

Ave.

JaneSt.

JaneSt.

WesMall

Dixie

KeeleSt.

Kennedy

VictoriaPark

KeeleSt.

To

ron

toTra

nsit

Co

mm

issio

n

Rap

idTra

nsit

Op

tio

ns

Reta

ined

for

Fu

rth

er

Evalu

ati

on

Exh

ibit

ES

-21

YO

NG

E

E1

(Rad

ial)

E2

(Rad

ial)

C1

A2

A3

A4

A6

B1

Exis

tin

gR

ap

idT

ran

sit

Exp

an

sio

nO

ptio

ns

Re

tain

ed

for

Fu

rth

er

Eva

lua

tio

nA

2A

3A

4B

1

D1

D2

F2

F1

Rap

idTr

ansi

t

Exp

ansi

onS

tudy

(RT

ES

)



8. Detailed Evaluation of Rapid Transit Options

8.1 Introduction

In evaluating the rapid transit expansion options identified above, twoapproaches have been utilized reflecting the above key factors to successfulstation development. The first step was to compare the extension options in2021 to the existing suburban sections of the subway and RT system in2001. If new lines can approach or exceed in the future, the performance ofthe existing system today, then there is a high probability for operatingsuccess and vice versa. The second step was to evaluate the new rapidtransit lines on a comparative basis to each other.

8.2 Comparison of Existing and New Rapid Transit Lines

When suburban sections of existing lines are compared to proposedextensions, it is clear that, based on modest city growth in population (to2.7 million) very few corridors have the immediate potential to be successful.As shown in Exhibit ES-22, only the Sheppard Subway corridor has densitiesthat are comparable to suburban sections of the existing network. This isdue in large part to the large high density node of development in theConsumers Road Business Park and existing high density development atBirchmount Road and Kennedy Road.

Extensions of the Spadina, Yonge and Bloor-Danforth lines are less attractivein terms of existing and future densities whereas the Eglinton corridor and anextension of the Scarborough RT have modest existing and future densities.

When sections of existing and potential new lines are compared in terms offuture density, daily usage, development within 500 metres of stations anddevelopment within 2 kilometres, a similar evaluation results. Easterlyextensions of the Sheppard Subway consistently rank higher in many casesthan existing lines while Bloor-Danforth extensions, the Spadina Subwayextension to the Vaughan Corporate Centre and a Yonge Subway extensionto Highway 7 rank among the lowest options. The other extension options(Eglinton, SRT, Spadina north to Steeles Avenue, Yonge Subway north toClark Avenue) have modest densities and could be successful withredevelopment. Overall, only the Sheppard Subway and SRT extensionoptions exceed the threshold of 100 workers/residents per hectare that isnecessary for successful rapid transit.

8.3 Comparison of New Rapid Transit Options to Each Other

A description of the differences between the various options for keyevaluation criteria is outlined below:

Le

ng

thN

o.

of

Pk

Pt

Vo

lD

ail

yB

oa

rdin

gs

Co

mm

(km

)S

t'n

s(p

ph

pd

)B

oa

rdin

gs

pe

rk

mP

op

Em

pD

en

sit

yP

op

Em

pD

en

sit

yP

ark

ing

On

s/k

mD

ev't

<500m

Dev't

<2km

Yes

Mayb

eN

o

Ex

isti

ng

Lin

es

(20

00

)

Yo

ng

e-

Yo

rkM

ills

toF

inch

4.4

41

0,3

00

97

,53

42

2,1

67

15

,58

52

5,5

16

13

18

5,8

45

42

,22

44

72

,89

43

31

5

Sp

ad

ina

-Y

ork

da

leto

Do

wn

svie

w3

.43

3,3

00

40

,02

11

1,7

71

3,7

95

4,7

16

36

58

,20

44

1,5

25

42

No

13

18

17

Blo

or-

Da

nfo

rth

-R

oya

lY

ork

toK

iplin

g2

.73

8,1

00

59

,03

12

1,8

63

8,3

39

8,6

39

72

50

,54

83

2,6

13

40

1,2

82

41

21

8

Blo

or-

Da

nfo

rth

-V

icP

ark

toK

en

ne

dy

5.0

38

,50

05

6,7

41

11

,34

81

8,0

66

3,3

86

91

13

3,1

35

32

,33

15

72

,61

01

48

10

Sca

rR

T-

Mid

lan

dto

McC

ow

an

1.8

32

,50

02

9,2

66

16

,25

91

,10

11

9,5

54

88

47

,45

54

3,0

30

49

No

59

13

Pro

po

se

dE

xte

ns

ion

s(2

02

1)

A2

Sh

ep

pa

rdto

Vic

tori

aP

ark

2.1

25

,10

04

9,7

16

23

,67

41

0,8

39

14

,47

71

89

75

,09

73

3,6

94

75

25

02

18

X

A3

Sh

ep

pa

rdto

Ke

nn

ed

y4

.94

7,2

00

73

,94

81

5,0

91

16

,95

11

7,1

68

12

01

44

,72

06

6,9

74

84

1,0

50

64

6X

A4

Sh

ep

pa

rdto

CN

/CP

5.5

57

,20

07

3,9

48

13

,44

51

7,5

74

20

,15

31

12

19

9,7

00

92

,83

71

06

1,4

50

86

3X

A5

Sh

ep

pa

rdto

Sca

rbo

rou

gh

CC

8.0

68

,40

01

02

,84

01

2,8

55

39

,49

83

7,6

15

18

72

75

,09

01

14

,61

51

17

1,4

50

+1

02

2X

B1

Sca

rbo

rou

gh

RT

3.1

41

,90

02

3,9

08

7,7

12

15

,00

51

9,6

10

13

41

98

,09

56

6,6

18

13

11

,38

01

65

1X

C1

Eg

linto

nW

est

RT

4.8

44

,10

04

5,4

48

9,4

68

20

,02

79

,82

09

51

74

,57

44

6,0

85

95

40

01

57

4X

D1

Blo

or

Da

nfo

rth

toS

he

rwa

y3

.81

70

07

,14

41

,88

06

94

,88

56

32

2,6

58

36

,03

04

98

00

18

14

13

X

D2

Blo

or

Da

nfo

rth

toD

ixie

5.3

23

,30

03

4,4

08

6,4

92

35

26

,64

34

54

5,8

40

48

,94

15

32

,30

01

71

71

2X

E1

Sp

ad

ina

Ra

dia

lto

Ste

ele

s6

.14

3,8

00

81

,76

21

3,4

04

9,0

82

33

,86

01

37

12

7,8

22

10

7,9

87

95

2,5

00

91

16

X

E2

Sp

ad

ina

Ra

dia

lto

Va

ug

ha

nC

C8

.65

4,4

00

10

6,8

78

12

,42

89

,08

33

6,6

58

11

71

28

,30

11

33

,22

88

12

,30

01

21

38

X

F1

Yo

ng

eto

Cla

rk3

.72

10

,00

08

8,4

09

23

,89

46

,42

92

,56

15

76

3,9

52

21

,98

55

41

,00

01

15

11

X

F2

Yo

ng

eto

La

ng

sta

ff7

.23

11

,90

01

04

,92

41

4,5

73

9,3

88

3,1

56

53

97

,14

42

7,7

35

46

1,0

00

71

61

6X

NO

TE

S:

Peak

poin

tvolu

me,

daily

board

ings

from

TT

CS

ubw

ay

Counts

No.

of

com

mute

rpark

ing

spaces

from

TT

CS

erv

ice

Pla

nnin

g

Exis

ting

popula

tion

and

em

plo

ym

ent

within

500m

and

2km

based

on

City

of

Toro

nto

blo

ck

face

data

Futu

repopula

tion

and

em

plo

ym

ent

based

on

1993

OG

TA

Fore

casts

,allo

cate

dto

traff

iczones

by

City

of

Toro

nto

Ex

hib

itE

S-2

2

Ch

ara

cte

ris

tic

so

fS

ub

wa

yE

nd

Se

cti

on

s

Ex

isti

ng

Se

cti

on

s(2

00

0)

vs

.P

rop

os

ed

Ex

ten

sio

ns

(20

21

)

Se

gm

en

tD

ev't

wit

hin

50

0m

De

v't

wit

hin

2k

mR

an

kP

ote

nti

al

for

Su

cc

es

s



(a) Boardings Per KilometreTwo projects, namely the Sheppard Subway extension to VictoriaPark and the Yonge Subway extension to Clark Avenue are superiorto all options (see Exhibit ES-23) and even exceed the performance ofthe existing Yonge Subway line (York Mills - Finch). The remainingSheppard and Yonge options as well as both Spadina options performmoderately well while the Scarborough RT, Eglinton and Bloor-Danforth options rank lowest in terms of boardings per kilometre.

(b) Population and Employment DensityAs outlined in Exhibit ES-24, two Sheppard Subway options (toVictoria Park and to the Scarborough City Centre) dominate all otheroptions and both of these options exceed both the density thresholdand the existing performance of the Yonge line (York Mills � Finch).

Density within two kilometres is highest on the Scarborough RTextension followed by the Sheppard Subway (to CN/CP and toScarborough City Centre) while the Yonge and Bloor-Danforth optionsare significantly below all other options (see Exhibit ES-25).

(c) Overall Cost EffectivenessThe Sheppard Subway extension from Don Mills to Victoria Park andall of the Spadina and Yonge Subway options have the lowest ratio ofcapital costs to new riders by a wide margin (see Exhibit ES-26). TheScarborough RT and the extension of the Sheppard Subway toKennedy/CN/CP or the Scarborough City Centre are moderatelysuccessful when comparing capital costs and the ability to generatenew riders. The Bloor-Danforth options are the least cost effectivefrom a capital cost effectiveness perspective followed by the EglintonSubway.

The ratio of operating costs to new riders is an indicator of thepotential for a new line to recover its costs from the farebox (seeExhibit ES-27). The Sheppard Subway extension to Victoria ParkAvenue is the highest ranked extension option based on this criteriafollowed closely by the Spadina Subway extensions options and theYonge Subway extension to Clark Avenue.

The remaining Sheppard Subway options, SRT, Eglinton Subway andYonge Subway extension to Highway 7 perform moderately wellwhile the Bloor-Danforth extension options are the lowest rankedoptions based on operating cost effectiveness.

(d) Network ConnectivityFrom a network connectivity and integration perspective, SheppardSubway, Spadina Subway and Yonge Subway options are more highlyrated (see Exhibit ES-28). The Sheppard Subway options have theability to link the North City Centre, the Richmond Hill GO line,

Ex

hib

itE

S-2

3:

Co

mp

ari

so

no

fB

oa

rdin

gs

pe

rK

ilo

me

tre

0

2,0

00

4,0

00

6,0

00

8,0

00

10,0

00

12,0

00

14,0

00

16,0

00

18,0

00

20,0

00

22,0

00

24,0

00

01

23

45

67

BoardingsperKilometre

She

pp

ard

SR

TE

glin

ton

Blo

or

-

Da

nfo

rth

Sp

ad

ina

Yo

ng

e

Vic

toria

Park

(A2)

Kennedy

(A3)

CN

/CP

(A4)

Scarb

oro

ugh

City

Centr

e(A

5)

SR

T(B

1)

Eglin

ton

(C1)

Sherw

ay

Gard

ens

(D2)

Dix

ie(D

1)

Vaughan

Corp

.C

entr

e(E

2)

Ste

ele

s(E

1)

Hig

hw

ay

7(F

2)

Cla

rk(F

1)

FA

VO

UR

AB

LE

EX

IST

ING

YO

NG

ELIN

E(Y

OR

KM

ILLS

-F

INC

H)

Ex

hib

itE

S-2

4:

Co

mp

ari

so

no

fD

en

sit

yw

ith

in5

00

Me

tre

s

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

01

23

45

67

PopulationandEmploymentDensity

within500Metres

She

pp

ard

SR

TE

glin

ton

Blo

or

-

Da

nfo

rth

Sp

ad

ina

Yo

ng

e

Vic

toria

Park

(A2)

Kennedy

(A3)

CN

/CP

(A4)

Scarb

oro

ugh

City

Centr

e(A

5)

SR

T(B

1)

Eglin

ton

(C1)

Sherw

ay

Gard

ens

(D2)

Dix

ie(D

1)

Vaughan

Corp

.C

entr

e(E

2)

Ste

ele

s(E

1)

Hig

hw

ay

7(F

2)

Cla

rk(F

1)

FA

VO

UR

AB

LE

EX

IST

ING

YO

NG

ELIN

E(Y

OR

KM

ILLS

-F

INC

H)

DE

NS

ITY

TH

RE

SH

OLD

Ex

hib

itE

S-2

5:

Co

mp

ari

so

no

fD

en

sit

yw

ith

in2

Kilo

me

tre

s

0

20

40

60

80

10

0

12

0

14

0

16

0

01

23

45

67

PopulationandEmploymentDensity

within2Kilometres

She

pp

ard

SR

TE

glin

ton

Blo

or

-

Da

nfo

rth

Sp

ad

ina

Yo

ng

e

Vic

toria

Park

(A2)

Kennedy

(A3)

CN

/CP

(A4)

Scarb

oro

ugh

City

Centr

e(A

5)

SR

T(B

1)

Eglin

ton

(C1)

Sherw

ay

Gard

ens

(D2)

Dix

ie(D

1)

Vaughan

Corp

.C

entr

e(E

2)

Ste

ele

s(E

1)

Hig

hw

ay

7(F

2)

Cla

rk(F

1)

FA

VO

UR

AB

LE

DE

NS

ITY

TH

RE

SH

OLD

Ex

hib

itE

S-2

6:

Co

mp

ari

so

no

fC

ap

ita

lC

os

tp

er

Ne

wR

ide

rR

ati

o

025

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

350

375

400

425

450

475

500

01

23

45

67

RatioofCapitalCoststoNewRiders

She

pp

ard

SR

TE

glin

ton

Blo

or

-

Da

nfo

rth

Sp

ad

ina

Yo

ng

e

Vic

toria

Park

(A2)

Kennedy

(A3)

CN

/CP

(A4)

Scarb

oro

ugh

City

Centr

e(A

5)

SR

T(B

1)

Eglin

ton

(C1)

Sherw

ay

Gard

ens

(D2)

Dix

ie(D

1)

Vaughan

Corp

.C

entr

e(E

2)

Ste

ele

s(E

1)

Hig

hw

ay

7(F

2)

Cla

rk(F

1)

FA

VO

UR

AB

LE

800

825

775

Ex

hib

itE

S-2

7:

Co

mp

ari

so

no

fO

pe

rati

ng

Co

sts

pe

rN

ew

Rid

er

Ra

tio

0123456789

10

11

12

13

01

23

45

67

RatioofOperatingCoststoNewRiders

She

pp

ard

SR

TE

glin

ton

Blo

or

-

Da

nfo

rth

Sp

ad

ina

Yo

ng

e

Vic

toria

Park

(A2)

Kennedy

(A3)

CN

/CP

(A4)

Sca

rbo

rou

gh

City

Ce

ntr

e(A

5)

SR

T(B

1)

Eglin

ton

(C1)

Sherw

ay

Gard

ens

(D2)

Dix

ie(D

1)

Va

ug

ha

nC

orp

.C

en

tre

(E2

)S

teele

s(E

1)

Hig

hw

ay

7(F

2)

Cla

rk(F

1)

FA

VO

UR

AB

LE

22

23

Rapid Transit OptionNetwork

ConnectivityFlexibility/

RiskDevelopment

PotentialInter-Regional

Benefits

Victoria Park (A2) , + = ,Kennedy (A3) , , , ,CN/CP (A4) + , = ,Scarborough City Centre (A5) + , + ,

SRT (B1) " + = ,

Eglinton (C1) , " ; ,

Sherway Gardens (D2) " , = "Dixie (D1) , , ; +

Steeles (E1) , , = +Vaughan Corporate Centre (E2) + " = +

Clark (F1) , , , +Highway 7 (F2) + , = +

Legend+ High Rating

= High - Medium Rating, Medium Rating

; Medium - Low Rating" Low Rating

Comparison of Development Potential, Inter-Regional Benefits,Flexibility / Risk and Network Connectivity

Exhibit ES-28

Yonge

Sheppard

Bloor-Danforth

Spadina



Highway 404, the Consumers Road Business Park, the Stouffville GOline, a future cross-town GO line, the Scarborough City Centre andthe SRT into an integrated network.

Similarly, an extension of the Spadina Subway line to York Universityhas the ability to link York University, the Bradford GO line, theVaughan Corporate Centre, the future Highway 407 Transitway andimproved Highway 7 transit service into an integrated network.

A Yonge Subway extension has the potential to link the North YorkCity Centre, the future Highway 407 Transitway, the Richmond HillGO line and regional bus service into an integrated transit network.

(e) Staging Flexibility/RiskFrom a staging perspective (see Exhibit ES-28), there is increased riskof forecasts not materializing the longer it takes to implement aparticular line. In this context, the options with the least risk from astaging perspective are the Sheppard Subway extension to VictoriaPark, the Bloor-Danforth extension to Sherway Gardens and the SRTextension, all of which could be implemented within a 5 year timehorizon. All of the remaining options take considerably longer toimplement, have higher capital requirements and consume capitalfunding for longer periods of time.

(f) Development PotentialWhile future densities based on long term projections of City widegrowth policies are an important criteria in evaluating future rapidtransit options, past experience is that policy objectives alone are notsufficient to ensure that redevelopment occurs. As noted earlier,there are numerous examples of stations where little or noredevelopment has taken place 25 years after the opening of a stationdespite supportive land use policies.

The options with the highest potential (see Exhibit ES-28) forredevelopment based on the success factors observed at existingstations are the following options:

Sheppard Subway• Don Mills to Victoria Park• Don Mills to CN/CP• Don Mills to Scarborough City Centre

SRT• McCowan to Sheppard

Bloor-Danforth• Kipling to Sherway



Yonge Subway• Finch to Langstaff

Spadina Subway• Downsview to Steeles (short term)• Downsview to Vaughan Corporate Centre (long term)

The Bloor-Danforth extension to Dixie, the Yonge Subway extensionto Clark Avenue and the Sheppard Subway extension to Kennedyhave moderate appeal for redevelopment. The Eglinton Subway ranksthe lowest in terms of redevelopment potential due to the fragmentedland ownership pattern surrounding most stations, the slow pace ofredevelopment in the York City Centre, and the fact that the currentCity of Toronto Official Plan does not recognize the York City Centreas a major growth node for the future.

(g) Inter-Regional ImpactsThe project with the most significant inter-regional benefits areobviously those projects which extend into the 905 region (Spadina,Yonge and to a lesser extent the Bloor-Danforth extension). Due tothe large potential for commuter parking at Steeles Avenue, theSpadina Subway extension to Steeles Avenue is particularly attractivedespite the fact that the line ends at the City of Toronto/York Regionboundary (see Exhibit ES-28).

Apart from connecting to the Stouffville GO line, the SheppardSubway has only marginal benefits from an inter-regional perspectiveas does an extension of the SRT. While the Eglinton Subway line haslong term inter-regional potential, the initial phase of the line has onlymoderate inter-regional potential.

8.4 Short Listed Projects

As outlined in Exhibit ES-29 and ES-30 and based on the key evaluationcriteria, two projects, namely the Sheppard Subway and the SpadinaSubway consistently rank higher than other options and have the highestpotential for success. The potential staging options and station locations forthese projects are as follows (see Exhibit ES-31):

Rapid Transit OptionLength(km)

Number ofStations

Capital Cost1

($2000)Spadina SubwayE1 Downsview to Steeles 6.1 4 $975 MSheppard SubwayA2 Don Mills to Victoria ParkA4 Don Mills to CN/CPA5 Don Mills to Scarborough City Centre

2.15.58.0

257

$420 M$1,050 M$1,535 M

1 Excluding property, yard and escalation costs.

960407

EXH

IBIT

ES-2

9 - F

INA

L SC

REE

NIN

G O

F EX

PAN

SIO

N O

PTIO

NS

Dev

elop

men

tD

ensi

tyC

ost

Effe

ctiv

enes

sRap

id T

rans

it O

ptio

nD

aily

Boa

rdin

gsBoa

rdin

gspe

r K

mW

ithi

n500 m

Withi

n2 k

ms

Withi

n500 m

Withi

n2 k

ms

Cap

ital

Ope

rating

Net

wor

kC

onne

ctiv

ity

Dev

elop

men

tPo

tent

ial

Sho

rtLi

sted

Proj

ect

She

ppar

d Sub

way

A2 -

Vic

toria

Par

kA

3 -

Ken

nedy

A4 -

CN

/CP

A5 -

Sca

rbor

ough

City

Cen

tre

Med

ium

Hig

hH

igh

Hig

h

Hig

hM

ediu

mM

ediu

mM

ediu

m

Hig

hH

igh

Hig

hH

igh

Med

ium

Hig

hH

igh

Hig

h

Sup

erio

rH

igh

Hig

hSup

erio

r

Med

ium

Med

ium

Hig

hH

igh

Sup

erio

rM

ediu

mM

ediu

mM

ediu

m

Sup

erio

rH

igh

Hig

hH

igh

Med

ium

Med

ium

Hig

hH

igh

Hig

hM

ediu

mH

igh

Hig

h

Yes No

Yes

Yes

B1 -

Sca

rbor

ough

RT

Low

Low

Hig

hH

igh

Hig

hH

igh

Hig

hH

igh

Low

Med

ium

No

C1 -

Egl

into

n Sub

way

Med

ium

Low

Hig

hH

igh

Hig

hM

ediu

mLo

wH

igh

Low

Low

No

Blo

or-D

anfo

rth

D1 -

She

rway

D2 -

Dix

ieLo

wLo

wLo

wLo

wLo

wLo

wLo

wM

ediu

mM

ediu

mM

ediu

mLo

wLo

wPo

orLo

wPo

orLo

wLo

wLo

wH

igh

Med

ium

No

No

Spa

dina

Sub

way

E1 -

Rad

ial t

o Ste

eles

E2 -

Rad

ial t

o V

CC

Hig

hH

igh

Med

ium

Med

ium

Med

ium

Med

ium

Hig

hH

igh

Med

ium

Med

ium

Med

ium

Med

ium

Sup

erio

rSup

erio

rSup

erio

rSup

erio

rH

igh

Hig

hH

igh

Hig

hY

es No

Yon

ge S

ubw

ayF1

- C

lark

F2 -

Hig

hway

7H

igh

Hig

hH

igh

Med

ium

Low

Low

Med

ium

Med

ium

Med

ium

Med

ium

Med

ium

Med

ium

Sup

erio

rSup

erio

rSup

erio

rH

igh

Low

Hig

hM

ediu

mH

igh

No

No

Scarborough

City Cen

tre

A5

CN/CP

SHEP

PAR

D E

AST

(A2,

A4,

A5)

SRT

A4

A2

SHEP

PAR

D

YONGE

Victoria

Park

SPADINA

BLO

OR

-DA

NFO

RTH

Steeles

SPA

DIN

AN

OR

TH (E

1)

TORONTO

TORONTO

TORONTO

TORONTO

TORONTO

TORONTO

TORONTO

TORONTO

TORONTO

TORONTO

TORONTO

TORONTO

TORONTO

TORONTO

TORONTO

TORONTO

TORONTO

TORONTO

TORONTO

TORONTO

TORONTO

TORONTO

TORONTO

TORONTO

TORONTO

Markham

Markham

Markham

Markham

Markham

Markham

Markham

Markham

Markham

Markham

Markham

Markham

Markham

Markham

Markham

Markham

Markham

Markham

Markham

Markham

Markham

Markham

Markham

Markham

Markham

Vaughan

Vaughan

Vaughan

Vaughan

Vaughan

Vaughan

Vaughan

Vaughan

Vaughan

Vaughan

Vaughan

Vaughan

Vaughan

Vaughan

Vaughan

Vaughan

Vaughan

Vaughan

Vaughan

Vaughan

Vaughan

Vaughan

Vaughan

Vaughan

Vaughan

KING

STON

RD

VICTORIA PARK AV

YOR

K M

ILLS

RD

DON MILLS RD

LAW

REN

CE

AV E

LESLIE ST

BAYVIEW AV

STEE

LES

AV

E

KENNEDY RD

MIDLAND AV

BIRCHMOUNT RD

WARDEN AV

BRIMLEY RD

MARKHAM RD

MCCOWAN RD

FIN

CH

AV

E

EGLI

NTO

N A

V E

WOODBINE AV

ST C

LAIR

AV

E

O'C

ON

NO

R D

R

CO

LLE

GE

ST

QU

EEN

ST

W

DUFFERIN ST

BLACK CREEK DR

LAW

REN

CE

AV

W

KEELE ST

DAN

FOR

TH A

V

PAPE AV

LAKE

SH

OR

E B

LVD

E

QU

EEN

SW

AY

BLO

OR

ST

W

STEE

LES

AV

W

HIG

HW

AY

7

WIL

SO

N A

V

YONGE ST

AVENUE RD

BATHURST ST

LAN

GS

TAFF

RD

DU

PON

T ST

SHEP

PAR

D A

V W

FIN

CH

AV

W ST C

LAIR

AV

W

WESTON RD

REXD

ALE

BLVDAL

BIO

N RD

EGLI

NTO

N A

V W

KIPLING AV

ISLINGTON AV

LAKE

SH

OR

E BL

VD

W

LAW

REN

CE

AV E

JANE ST

MORNINGSIDE AV

ELLE

SMER

E R

D

SHEP

PAR

D A

V E

HWY 404

HW

Y 40

1

HWY

407

GA

RDI

NER

EXW

Y

HWY 427

HW

Y 40

1

HWY 427

HWY 400

Rap

id T

rans

itEx

pans

ion

Stud

yR

apid

Tra

nsit

Opt

ions

Ret

aine

d fo

r Fur

ther

Eva

luat

ionLE

GEN

D: Ex

istin

g R

apid

Rai

l

Expa

nsio

n O

ptio

ns R

etai

ned

for F

urth

er E

valu

atio

n

Exhi

bit

ES-3

0

Maj

or N

odes

of D

evel

opm

ent



While the Yonge Subway options rank higher than most options, a northerlyextension of the Yonge Subway line has the potential to overload the Yongeline. From an operational perspective, it would be more prudent to betterbalance ridership on the Yonge and Spadina Subway lines by first extendingthe Spadina Subway north of the current Yonge Subway terminus at FinchAvenue. By extending the Spadina Subway first, approximately 2,000-2,500 AM peak period (6-9 a.m.) riders on the Yonge Subway can be offloaded to the Spadina Subway line thereby providing significant relief to theYonge line in the medium term.

9. Short Term Operational Improvements

With the recommendation that the Spadina and Sheppard Subway lines beconsidered for implementation in the next 10-15 years, there is an opportunity toenhance the prospects for rapid transit in other corridors in the short term. Based onexisting bus volumes, two corridors should be considered for priority attention forinterim improvements including transit priority measures. The two corridorsrecommended for priority attention are the:

• Yonge Subway corridor from Finch Avenue to Highway 7, and

• Bloor-Danforth Subway corridor from Kipling to Sherway Gardens.

10. Next Steps

Based on the results and conclusions of this phase of the work, there are a numberof steps necessary to further evaluate rapid transit expansion options as follows:

• In conjunction with City staff, undertake detailed forecasts of ridership for theoptions based on the recently completed City forecasts of population andemployment for a 3.1 million population scenario.

• Undertake alignment and station analysis to reach conclusions concerning thefeasibility and desirability of the Keele Street alignment (Spadina Subway) andthe Consumers Road alignment (Sheppard Subway).

• Undertake a detailed study of future downtown development scenarios and theresulting long-term GO and rapid transit capacity needs into the core area.

• Prepare a detailed business case analysis for each of the preferred options basedon an assessment of vehicle, yard and property requirements, operating costand forecast revenues.

Following the completion of the above analyses, a specific recommendation can bemade concerning the highest priority project that should be implemented from theTTC�s perspective.



In addition, staff will:

• Work with City staff to ensure property protection and land use support for theproposed station locations and alignment requirements of the preferred options.

• Identify opportunities to implement surface transit priority strategies and BusRapid Transit (BRT) services in potential future rapid transit corridors as aprecursor to future rapid transit services. These corridors to include YongeStreet north of Finch Avenue, Downsview Station to York University andVaughan, the Bloor Street Corridor west of Kipling Station, and Eglinton Avenuewest of Eglinton West Station.

table of contents - transit torontoand priorities for expansion of the ttc s rapid transit system to...

Documents